New Perspectives on 2 Enoch No Longer Slavonic Only Edited by Andrei A. Orlov and Gabriele Boccaccini Associate Editor Jason M. Zurawski LEIDEN • BOSTON 2012 THE SACERDOTAL TRADITIONS OF 2 ENOCH AND THE DATE OF THE TEXT Andrei A. Orlov Introduction In previous studies experts have repeatedly raised concerns about the date of the apocalypse, noting that the text does not seem to supply definitive chronological boundaries. Indeed, while for the last hundred years 2 Enoch has been consistently included in various collections of early pseudepigraphical texts, scholarly studies show some ambiguity and caution in their treatment of the apocalypse as a sample of early Jewish thought, given the uncertainty of the text’s date. Alongside this ambiguity and caution, one often finds references to Francis Andersen’s remark that “in every respect 2 Enoch remains an enigma. So long as the date and location remain unknown, no use can be made of it for his- torical purposes.”1 However, the uncritical use of Andersen’s reference to 2 Enoch as an enigma “in every respect” simplifies 2 Enoch scholar- ship, trivializing the value of the long and complex history of efforts to clarify the date of the text. The current study will deal with the history of research on the sacerdotal traditions in the apocalypse which consti- tute an important cluster of motifs scholars often use to demystify the text’s date. Early Debates about the Date Already in 1896, in his introduction to the English translation of 2 Enoch, Robert Henry Charles assigned “with reasonable certainty” the composi- tion of the text to the period between 1–50 c.e.,2 before the destruction of 1 F. I. Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in The Old Testament Pseude- pigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, 2 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985), 1:97. 2 In his introduction to the Forbes’ translation of 2 Enoch in APOT, Charles broadened the range of the dating of the apocalypse, postulating that “2 Enoch in its present form 104 andrei a. orlov the temple; this view, however, did not remain unchallenged.3 In 1918 the British astronomer A. S. D. Maunder launched an attack against the early dating of the pseudepigraphon, arguing that 2 Enoch does not represent an early Jewish text written in the first century c.e., but instead is “a speci- men of Bogomil propaganda,” composed in the Slavonic language in “the ‘Middle Bulgarian’ period—i.e., between the 12th and 15th centuries.”4 In the attempt to justify her claim, Maunder appealed to the theological con- tent of the book, specifically to its alleged Bogomil features, such as the dualism of good and evil powers. She found that such dualistic ideas were consistent with the sectarian teaching that “God had two sons, Satanail and Michael.”5 Maunder’s study was not limited solely to the analysis of the theological features of the text but also included a summary of the astronomical and calendrical observations which attempted to prove a late date for the text. Her argument against the early dating of the pseude- pigraphon was later supported by J. K. Fotheringham, who offered a less radical hypothesis that the date of 2 Enoch must be no earlier than the middle of the seventh century c.e.6 Scholars have noted that Maunder’s argumentation tends to under- estimate the theological and literary complexities of 2 Enoch. The remark was made that, after reading Maunder’s article, one can be “astonished at the weakness of this argument and at the irrelevant matters adduced in support of it.”7 Charles responded to the criticism of Maunder and Fotheringham in his article published in 1921 in the Journal of Theological Studies, in which he pointed out, among other things, that “the Slavonic Enoch, which ascribes the entire creation to was written probably between 30 b.c. and a.d. 70. It was written after 30 b.c., for it makes use of Sirach, 1 Enoch, and the Book of Wisdom . ., and before a.d. 70; for the Temple is still standing.” R. H. Charles and N. Forbes, “The Book of the Secrets of Enoch,” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R. H. Charles, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), 2:429. This opinion about the early date of 2 Enoch was also supported by Charles’ contemporaries, the Russian philologist Matvej Sokolov and German theologian Nathaniel Bonwetsch. 3 R. H. Charles and W. R. Morfill, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896), xxvi. 4 A. S. D. Maunder, “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” The Observatory 41 (1918): 309–316 (esp. 316). 5 Maunder, “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” 315. 6 J. K. Fotheringham, “The Date and the Place of Writing of the Slavonic Enoch,” JTS 20 (1919): 252. 7 A. Rubinstein, “Observations on the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” JJS 15 (1962): 1–21 (3). the sacerdotal traditions of 2 enoch and the date of the text 105 God and quotes the Law as divine, could not have emanated from the Bogomils.”8 Another attempt to question the scholarly consensus about the early date of 2 Enoch was made by Josef Milik in his introduction to the edition of the Qumran fragments of the Enochic books published in 1976.9 In the introductory section devoted to 2 Enoch, Milik proposed that the apoca- lypse was composed between the ninth and tenth centuries c.e. by a Byz- antine Christian monk who knew the “Enochic Pentateuch” “in the form with which we are familiar through the Ethiopic version.”10 In order to support his hypothesis of a late date Milik draws attention to several lexi- cal features of the text. One of them is the Slavonic word змоурениемь (zmureniem’)11 found in 2 Enoch 22:11 which Milik has traced to the Greek term συρμαιόγραφος,12 a derivative of the verb συρμαιογραφεῖν, translated as “to write in minuscule, hence quickly.”13 He argues that this verb appears to be a neologism which is not attested in any Greek text before the begin- ning of the ninth century. In addition in his analysis of the lexical features of the apocalypse, Milik directed attention to the angelic names of Arioch and Marioch found in 2 Enoch 33, arguing that they represent the equiva- lents of the Harut and Marut of the Muslim legends attested in the second surah of the Qur’an.14 John Collins, among others, has offered criticism of Milik’s lexical arguments, noting that even if the Slavonic text uses the Greek word συρμαιόγραφος, “a single word in the translation is not an adequate basis 8 R. H. Charles, “The Date and Place of Writings of the Slavonic Enoch,” JTS 22 (1921): 162–3. See also K. Lake, “The Date of the Slavonic Enoch,” HTR 16 (1923): 397–398. 9 J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clar- endon Press, 1976). 10 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 109. 11 M. I. Sokolov, “Материалы и заметки по старинной славянской литературе. Выпуск третий. VII. Славянская Книга Еноха Праведного. Тексты, латинский перевод и исследование. Посмертный труд автора приготовил к изданию М. Сперанский,” Чтения в Обществе Истории и Древностей Российских 4 (1910): 1–167 (23, n. 13). 12 Milik’s hypothesis is implausible. Most scholars trace the word змоурениемь (zmure- niem’) to the Slavonic змоурьна (zmur’na) which corresponds to σμύρνα, myrrha. J. Kurz, ed., Slovnik Jazyka Staroslovenskeho (Lexicon Linguae Palaeoslovenicae), 4 vols. (Prague: Akademia, 1966), 1:677–8. Andersen’s translation renders the relevant part of 2 Enoch 22:11 as follows: “And Vereveil hurried and brought me the books mottled with myrrh.” Ander- sen, “2 Enoch,” 1:141. 13 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 111. 14 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 110. 106 andrei a. orlov for dating the whole work.”15 He has also pointed out that “the alleged correspondence of the angels Arioch and Marioch to Harut and Marut of Muslim legend is indecisive since the origin of these figures has not been established.”16 Milik’s arguments were not confined only to the lexical features of the apocalypse. He also argued that the priestly succession from Methuselah to Noah’s nephew Melchizedek described in the third part of 2 Enoch reflects “the transmission of monastic vocations from uncle to nephew, the very widespread custom in the Greek Church during the Byzantine and medieval periods.”17 This feature in his opinion also points to the late Byzantine date of the pseudepigraphon. It should be noted that Milik’s insistence on the Byzantine Christian provenance of the apocalypse was partially inspired by the earlier research of the French Slavist André Vail- lant who argued for the Christian authorship of the text.18 Vaillant’s posi- tion too generated substantial critical response since the vast majority of readers of 2 Enoch had been arguing for the Jewish provenance of the original core of the text.19 The Sacerdotal Traditions and the Date of the Text Our previous analysis shows that none of the arguments against the early dating of the pseudepigraphon stands up to criticism and that no convincing alternative to the early date has so far been offered.20 15 J. J. Collins, “The Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism,” in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. D. Hellholm (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 533, n. 7. 16 Collins, “The Genre Apocalypse in Hellenistic Judaism,” 533, n. 7. 17 Milik, The Books of Enoch, 114.